By Charmayne Schmitz
On Thursday, Detective Wilson from the West Sacramento Police Department explained the symbols used by the Northern Riders/Broderick Boys to identify themselves as separate from the Norteños gang. The Playboy bunny, (which turned upside down would resemble an “R” for Riders) is the main identification, along with epitaphs that use the word “ride” and the “$” sign. Another symbol is a broken star to show disrespect for the Norteño gang they broke away from.
Wilson went on to list the members that have been documented to be a part of the gang. This included some prior cases and convictions covered by the Vanguard such as Chris Castillo from the Memorial Park incident. The criminal history of several of the Riders gang was reviewed, along with documentation of 19 incidents that law enforcement used to identify Wolfington as a known gang member. Wolfington’s address book was shown to the jury to illustrate his contacts with other known gang members.
Wilson explained that the power of a gang comes from inciting fear in the surrounding community. Whenever a member is disrespected, an example must be made of the person or persons who disrespected them.
The co-defendant in this case, Silva, does not have extensive documentation as a gang member. There are three incidents from 2004 to 2007 that placed him with the Oak Park Bloods, which is a subset of the Bloods. Wilson did not explain how Wolfington and Silva were aligned when it seems they should be rivals.
The victims of retaliation by gangs are usually drug users. Gangs make their living dealing drugs, along with other crimes. At the end of morning testimony, Wilson was asked if he believed Wolfington and Silva were established gang members, and whether the crime was a gang crime. Wilson responded, “In my opinion, yes.”
Defense Attorney Johnson, representing Mr. Wolfington, began cross-examination after the lunch break. Johnson asked if every incident committed by a gang member is an act of gang violence. In Wilson’s opinion, the answer is yes. Wilson held to this answer in response to several different scenarios Johnson presented, including domestic violence.
Johnson asked about the Memorial Park case and what was overheard by witnesses as the beating took place. Wilson responded “BRK (for Broderick Boys) kicking your ass.” This is known as a broadcast to let others know who is in charge. There were no such broadcasts in the in the present case.
Johnson continued to pick at Wilson’s testimony. Johnson questioned why the Riders were never mentioned in Wilson’s testimony in more than 15 prior cases. Wilson claimed they didn’t have the intelligence about the break off gang. Johnson cited a written report from the corrections department identifying the Riders in the early 2000’s. The first time Wilson testified about the Riders was in the Chris Castillo case. Johnson asked if Wilson saw his job as one where he filters out information for testimony. Wilson responded that he answers the questions he is asked on the witness stand – implying the prosecutor is filtering the information?
Another way Johnson attempted to cast doubt on Wilson’s expertise used Carlitha Gordon’s interview record. Ms. Gordon told him the fight started because she wanted to clear the room. It escalated when the victim made a threat. Wilson held fast to his belief that any crime committed by a gang member is a gang crime. The ruthlessness of the crime, the repeated stabbings, sends a message about showing respect.
Johnson asked if he listened to the testimony of Simone Mitchell saying it was not a gang-related issue. When Wolfington was called a white boy by the victim, his response was, “I’m from Broderick.” Wilson took this as identifying himself as a gang member. Johnson questioned why he would not have said he was a “Broderick Boy” if that had been his intent. After all, Broderick is a neighborhood in West Sacramento. Wilson would not back down on his opinion of the crime.
“Johnson asked if Wilson saw his job as one where he filters out information for testimony. Wilson responded that he answers the questions he is asked on the witness stand, implying the prosecutor is filtering the information?”
How does answering questions Wilson is asked “imply” anything about the prosecutor “filtering out information”?
“Wilson did not explain how Wolfington and Silva were aligned when it seems they should be rivals.”
Whose observation is this speculation?
JS: One of the disconnects with some of the gang testimony is that they end up in situations where should-be rival gang members end up working in concert and yet the claim of gang connectivity is “promotes, furthers, or assists” – why would rival gang members seek to do that?
[quote]How does answering questions Wilson is asked “imply” anything about the prosecutor “filtering out information”?[/quote]
I don’t see that there is any need for “implication” here. It is clear that both the prosecution and the defense “filter out information” by selectively inquiring of each witness only those questions whose answer’s they deem likely to support their own position. This is the heart of the adversarial system of law we adhere to. Too often the goal of each side is not to present all of the relevant evidence so as to arrive at at the most just conclusion possible, but only such evidence as will bolster their side leading to a “win”.
David, I’m just wondering who is raised the issue that Wilson “did not explain” something. Did the defense ask something that Wilson refused to answer? Was this just a Vanguard subtle commentary (to make the point you just attempted to make)?
To whom should we attribute the speculation that “it seems (Wolfington and Silva) should be rivals”? Again, did the defense raise this? Or, the Vanguard reporter and/or publisher? The awkwardness of the wording suggests it’s not being reported as trial issue, but, rather, slipped in as a Vanguard editorial point. Just looking for transparency.
medwoman, my point exactly. Observing that “just answering the questions asked” implies that the prosecutor is “filtering” to the exclusion of the defense attorney reveals an odd bias that ignores your well-stated description of how questioning works in our system.
To my mind, Wilson simply was stating that he responds the best he can to whatever questions he’s asked by anyone in the proceedings. To conclude an implication follows that the prosecutor alone is “filtering” is an illogical, unusual leap.
Where’s the implication [re: gangs from a (validated) gang member] discussion re: “I’m from Broderick?”
Oh, my bad, doesn’t fit the story teller’s narrative…
Nevermind.